Milicic v. The Baseball Marketing Co., Inc.

857 A.2d 689 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D is in the business of the marketing, distribution, and sale of basketball apparel and related products. P is an 18-year-old basketball player from Serbia and was the 2003 second overall draft pick by the National Basketball Association's Detroit Pistons. P and D entered into an agreement on June 15, 2002, when P was just 16 years-old, whereby D would pay P certain monies and provide him with products in exchange for P's endorsement. The agreement was twice amended, revising the amount of compensation and to whom the payments would be sent, however, all other provisions remained the same, including the choice of law clause mandating the agreement to be governed by the laws of Pennsylvania. P was virtually unknown in the United States at the time the agreement was executed. That changed quickly when it was widely known he was likely to be a top-five N.B.A. draft pick. P was then in a position to sign a more lucrative endorsement deal and in June 2003, he proposed a buyout of the agreement. Four days after his 18th birthday, P made a buy-out offer to D, which was refused. P then sent D a letter disaffirming the agreement. He began returning all monies and products (or their equivalent value) he had received pursuant to the agreement. D refused to accept the termination. D wrote letters to Adidas and Reebok informing them that D was 'involved in a contractual dispute' with P and that the 'agreement is valid and enforceable and will remain in force for several more years.' D requested copies of all communication between P and the respective companies. Adidas ceased negotiations and a nearly finalized endorsement agreement was not executed. P filed a Complaint seeking a Temporary Restraining Order, a Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Relief. The Court granted the TRO and after a hearing, and consideration of briefs filed by both parties, granted the Preliminary Injunction. This timely appeal followed.